Pages

Welcome to London Civic Watch

"Ever wonder if City Council is as contentious and chaotic as it is sometimes portrayed? Here you can get a progressive perspective on some of the issues from someone who spent four years in the trenches. Totally unbiased, though!Feel free to comment but keep it respectful, just like they do at council."

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Why the bride's parents should pay for the reception

There were previous reports of questionable financial
activity—a charity headed by the mayor handing out inflated tax receipts, associates
who ran afoul of the securities commission—but none has grabbed the attention
of Londoners like the allegations that Joe Fontana, while a federal member of
parliament and a cabinet minister, used taxpayers’ money to pay for his son’s 2005
wedding.

It’s the kind of thing people can relate to. These days,
weddings are expensive propositions. There are the dresses and the flowers, the rehearsal dinner, the gifts for the wedding party, the honeymoon. It all adds up. But the biggest cost is for the reception. One hundred dollars per guest is not unusual once you throw in the dinner, the band and the open bar.

Of course, there is always the hope that the guests will
come through with generous gifts, preferably in cash, to make it all worthwhile.
Unfortunately, the gifts go to the happy couple; all too often, the parents get
the bill.

If you are the parent, you probably should have been
prepared for this, made it clear how much you were prepared to throw in for
this shindig. And if you were planning to pick up the whole tab, you had better
figure out where the money is going to come from. Maybe a bank loan, a line of
credit or, if you had been planning ahead, cash in a couple of GIC’s that had
been taken out for just such an eventuality. In any case, you probably wouldn’t
be redirecting the bill to your neighbours.

But that is what appears to have happened in the case of the
mayor’s son’s wedding. According to several reports in the London Free Press, Public
Works Canada covered the $1,700 down payment on the event held at the Marconi Club and
then, some six months later, paid the outstanding balance of $18,900.

The report by Chip Martin even included pictures
of copies of the invoices and payment stubs, including cheque and invoice numbers
and clearly identifying Joe Fontana, MP in the particulars. While all kinds of
hanky-panky can be played with computers and Photoshop these days, a previous
club manager, Joe DiPietro, verified the transactions. It’s no wonder that he
remembered them “vividly” since he had spent six months chasing Fontana to pay the
balance.

Fontana, when approached about these revelations last week,
did not have so vivid a recollection. Even the fact that Martin had sent him
several emails with specific questions seemed not to jog his memory. He didn’t
reply to either the emails or the phone calls. Finally, he was confronted in person
by Jonathan Sher at a meeting of the health unit on Thursday evening. By then,
the story had broken online and it was all over the front page of the paper the
next morning as well as on local radio stations.

A television clip had caught the mayor’s immediate response
and it was not encouraging for those who wished to believe this was all a
mistake.

“It was seven and a half years ago,” he pointed out.
And throughout his 18 years in Parliament, he had had a “stellar reputation” with
taxpayers’ dollars.

And then, a curious addition: “Parents and their children
are responsible for paying their wedding reception bills.”

But there was no denial, no explanation. As one observer on
Twitter noted, it would have been better to say, “No comment.”

The following morning, Free Press reporter Hank Daniszewski
tried again to get clarification from the mayor.

Fontana argued that he “only learned of the information last
night at 9 o’clock when, in fact, the local press pointed it out.” No one had
talked to him about this issue in seven and a half years; he wanted to be given
the opportunity to look at all the facts, study the information, do his “due
diligence”.

“Blurry images” on the front page of the newspaper didn’t
cut it for him, he wanted to see the “real documentation”. His big problem
seemed to be that no one had shown him any “originals” so that he could take a
look at what had occurred. Still no denial, no explanation.

These comments had been made on the spot as he was
questioned by reporters, but by afternoon on Friday a formal statement was
released on his personal but paid for by the taxpayers website.

He hadn’t been aware of any investigation about this, he
stated. The documentation hadn’t been shared with him but “Londoners should
know that I will get to the bottom of this….” He had started to obtain and
review available documentation from 2005.

“I am confident a thorough and fair review will clearly
demonstrate all transactions were proper and valid,” he concluded.

That confidence was not shared by the public. How could
getting the taxpayers to pay for your son’s wedding reception be proper? Either
the mayor paid for it personally or he did not. Surely, even after seven and a
half years, you would remember who signed the cheque for your son’s wedding.
Surely you would remember if the cheque was drawn on your own account or your
employer’s. It’s not like remembering who picked up the tab for a couple of
drinks at the club. Or even who paid for your orange juice while on business.

It’s hard for Londoners to get the attention of Ottawa. When
the Electro-Motive Diesel Plant had closed, Fontana had demanded that the prime
minister “get his ass down here” to no avail. Earlier, he had challenged the
federal government to provide a $35M loan to Diamond Aircraft with similar
results.

But Friday, the House of Commons listened to what was coming
out of London. The matter had been turned over to the RCMP, we were informed.
One Conservative backbencher suggested that “Canadians haven’t seen this kind
of disrespect for their tax dollars since the days of the Liberal sponsorship
scandal.” I guess he had forgotten about Bev Oda and Peter MacKay even though
that was less than seven and a half years ago.

Over the weekend, Fontana released another statement. He had reviewed
some of the documentation which “clearly indicates a personal payment made to
the Marconi Club during the time frame in question.”

What on earth does that mean? Did he pay for a drink? Buy
tickets to a social event? Make a charitable donation?

The prevarication was too much for most of those who were
discussing the matter online. “The way he is dancing around the issue no matter
the outcome, I have lost faith in his integrity, and ability to lead this city,”
tweeted one, a sentiment shared by many others.

That’s not how Fontana sees it. “This is a serious matter;
however, it will not impede nor affect my work as Mayor of London. This remains
my priority and chief obligation,” he told Londoners via his website.

Others, however, see it differently. They wonder about the
mayor’s ability to lead while under such a dark cloud of suspicion. Even his
biggest supporters are beginning to feel uneasy with the current cat and mouse
game played between the media and the mayor. Some may even be wondering about
whether they voted correctly when they turned down the option of an integrity
commissioner. One may have come in handy when deciding what to do.

As for what can be done should the allegations be deemed
legitimate, it seems very little. There are few conditions under which a
municipally elected official can be removed from office as long as he owns or
rents property in the municipality, is eligible to vote in the municipality and
doesn’t miss more than three consecutive months of council meetings without
special leave from the council.

Of course, he could always resign. He has done that before,
from the federal parliament in 2006 to seek the mayoralty here in London, and
he made it, although it took a couple of elections. He could do it again, especially
if public pressure becomes compelling.

Fontana isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.He probably hires a bookkeeper or his wife handles the personal family finances. I doubt he knows how to count back change from a twenty.

The Marconi Club benefited from this. They are a charity. Maybe the Fontana's agreed to rent the club for the reception only if it had some updates and renovations, like a new stainless steel kitchen, bathrooms or floors or something that the charity was eligible for a refund and required a work permit to be issued and signed by Joe. That's called working the system and if the Marconi Club didn't use the money for a charitable purpose, then Joe's a scapegoat and that club is committing welfare fraud.

When it comes to the Marconi Club's motives, why are some people saying that they have it in for the Mayor. It sure does look like at least one cheque for the down payment was taken from the taxpayers. Everything about that is wrong. The Free Press articles say that this is coming out now because the mayor is not paying a more recent bill and the Marconi Club is chasing him to pay it. Maybe people there have just gotten sick of being taken by a rich man who has to be chased to pay his bills. Anyone who knows about the past cheques from the Canadian taxpayers probably has had a bad taste in their mouths for many years. It is a good thing that this has come out at last and does not mean that people at the Marconi Club are doing anything wrong. The only wrong might be that they did not come out with this sooner. The mayor is probably wishing that he had paid the recent bill promptly. Why does this rich man not want to pay his bills like the rest of us have to do?